The Sun. — London, England, 1838-07-24 00:00:00

viction that the Established Church will be maintained in Ire- 1 land. lam at the same time certain that you will never re concile the people of Ireland to the continuance of that Church by merely providing that ten per cent. shall be deducted from the ameunt of the revenues of the Church, and still less will you succeed in that end by declaring that an indefinite and un ascertained surplus which may probably accrue at a period some forty years hence shall hereafter be applied to the pur poses of education.—( Laughter and loud cheers.) I think it much better than that sum which is the property of the Church should be appropriated to the support of the Ministers of that Church.—( Hear.) Depend upon it, the Noble Lord will be no more able to maintain the principle which he propounded the other night than he was able to maintain the appropriation principle.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord says that if he pushed his principle to its legitimate extent that he ought to go further. Why, possibly in the declaration he made we may find some clue to the interpretation of that principle. It would be better that the Noble Lord should at once and above board tell us what is the conclusion of his principle, and what is the ultimate limit of its application.- 1 tell the Noble Lord that I consider that his principle, if brought to its legitimate conclusion, would be nothing more nor less than establishing the religion of the majority, and of transferring the wealth and influence of the mino rity to the support of the Church of the majority. If this is to be the legitimate conclusion of the Noble Lord's principle, let me tell him that no intermediate arrangement will give him any chance of such a settlement. What is the security that we hold for the maintenance of the Established Church. It is a fundamental principle of our Constitution that the Protestant religion should be established as the religion of the State. In addition to this we had a guaran tee at the time of the Union of Ireland with Great Britain that the Protestant Church should be maintained in its inte grity as the Established Church of that country. And mark you, this guarantee was given at a time when, whatever ano malies existed in that country, were as well known as they are now, and when the disproportion between the Catholics and Protestant inhabitants of Ireland was as well known as at pre sent. Well, then, at the time of the Union we were given an additional guarantee that the Protestant Church should be maintained as the Church of the State. We had besides this the moral guarantee that ought to be held binding by the parties who gave it, and who assumed at the time that the re moval of the civil disabilities of the Roman Cntholics was per. fectly consistent with the maintenance of the Protestant faith as the established faith, and with the maintenance of the Pro testant Church as the Established Church of the country. In everything that we did we always took care to maintain that principle. If you ask me to depart from that principle, I say I will not consent to do, because you now assume a new posi tion. You say, let four-fifths of the property of the Church be applied to the use of the Church, but let one-fifth be ap propriated somewhere else and applied to some other purpose. I said when you made such proposal that I never would give my consent to any such proceeding—that if I consented I would only weaken my title without acquiring any additional secu rity. I believe that the maintainatice of this great principle is of the deepest importance—l mean the principle of main taining the Established Church. In expressing my deter mination to maintain the Established Church, I adopt the principles that were settled at the Revolution—those principles which were forther recognized and confirmed by the Act of Union, and additionally guaranteed and strengthened at suc cessive times by every promise and pledge that Parliament could give.—(Cheers.) In conclusion, I will say that, after we have made every reasonable concession with respect to the amount of Tithes in Ireland, the remaining amount of Tithe, or of the revenue ',substituted in lieu thereof, should be solely and exclusively applied to the support of the Ministers of that religion, which I trust we shall ever feel it one of the highest duties to maintain as the established religion of the State. The Right Hon. Baronet resumed his seat amidst loud and reiterated cheering. He immediately again rose and proposed an amendment to the effect stated in his speech—that the rights of all parties to recover arrears of Tithes should be maintained, and that where parties consented:a° accept the terms proposed by the Government, the right of all such parties should be transferred to, and vested in, the Go vernment. Mr. BE RN A L having put the question and the amend ment from the Chair, Lord J. RUSSELL rose and said that the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated two points which he (Lord John Rus sell) considered of minor ielportance, and one which he thought of very great importance with respect to the sum of money now to be advanced. The Right Hon. Baronet said that the Government proposal went the length of paying the arrears of tithes for the last two years, and that it did not include the arrears of 1834 and 1835. The reason why that dis tinction was made was, that when the proposal was ori ginally submitted to the House, it was stated that only the arrears of the last two years were to be taken, and that former years were to be considered as years during which it was not likely that arrears could be collected. At the same time there were, no doubt, special cases, particular and in dividual cases, to which it might be desirable that a part of this sum should be applied. He should not propose, how ever, to alter his general proposition ; although, if he under stood the Right Hon. Baronet's suggestion correctly, the only - difference would be, whether the 300,0001., supposing it to be 300,0001., should be partaken in by persons who had a claim for arrears in 1834 and 1835. The next point was, with regard to the making up the sum of 300,0001., and not leav ing it as the Government proposed at 260,0001. He had an objection to the Right Hon. Baronet's proposition upon this point, although it was not upon the ground that the State would be any loser by adopting the alteration ; on the con trary, he thought the sum collected would exceed 40,0001. Therefore, if the question were merely one of money, he thought that by fixing the sum at 300,000/. the State would be rather a gainer than a loser by the change. But the sum of 260,0001. was originally taken upon this ground, and it was a ground that had considerable effect upon the House, namely, that the original grant was 1,000,000/., and that 200,000/. was the balance or remainder of that 1,000,0001., which as yet remained unappropriated. As the intention of Parliament was to grant 1,000,0001., and as a part only of that sum had been actually expended, it was assumed that the Legislature might very fairly make up the re mainder for the sake of carrying out the original design. But the House and the country he apprehended would be impatient of any proposition for a fresh grant of money for that purpose. It was upon that ground, therefore more than upon ahy ground of anticipated loss to the public, that he should oppose the proposition for fixing the sum at 800,000/. instead of 260,000/ But the main alteration proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet was, that instead of at once extinguish ing all arrears up to the time when that Act should come into operation, it should be left optional to the clergymen to ac cept the sum offered in payment of arrears or not ; and the ground upon which the Right Hon. Baronet suggested the alteration was, that it would be saving a great principle, and paying due regard to the rights of the Church. He (Lord John Russell) thought that that was a delusion. He thought that in making this grant, and giving this compensation to the owners of tithes—it being understood that in such cases the arrears of tithes were not to be collected—he thought that by taking that course, they did in fact indemnify those who owed arrears of tithes against any further demand for the payment of them. It might be very true that that intention was not expressed in words, but it was certainly very strongly implied. It must be supposed either .hat the majority of the clergy would accept this money as a compen sation for their arrears, or that they would not accept it. If the majority did not accept it, then the whole benefit and value of the grant would be lost, and all the irritation, dis content, and discord which existed in Ireland upon the sub ject of these arrears would continue. If, on the contrary, the majority of the clergy should accept the proferred compensation, in the majority of cases throughout the whole of the country the payment of arrears of tithes would be for given. Considering, then, the situation of the clergymen who had refused the compensation, and who endeavoured, under such a clause as that proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet, to enforce his right, and collect the arrears due to him, what would be the condition of such a clergyman, and how would he be refunded by the people ? Suppose a case. Here was a man to whom there were due 2001. for arrears of tithes in 1836 and 1837. The composition proposed to be given to him would probably amount only to about fifty per cent., that would be 100/. It might so happen that during those two years the maintenance of his family and other necessary ex penses would have led him to incur debts to the amount of 150/. A man in that position might, and perh'aps with no great unfairness, and with no great intended harshness on his part, say—" What I owe is 150/, the compensation proposed to be given me is only 100/. I think perhaps, if I were to col lect the arrears due to me, I might succeed in obtaining 75 per cent. which would just set me clear." That would be a very natural course for a man so situated to adopt ; but what would be said of him? Would it not be as natural for his pa rishioners to say—" Do not expect to obtain your arrears from us. We find that the arrears of all our neighbours have been forgiven, because the clergymen of these parishes have accepted the gratuity of jParliament. Why do not you do the same? At all events do not expect from us the payment of a tax from which our neighbours have been exempted." Did not every ono feel that that was the language which you'd be held. Therefore, although by the Right Hon. Ba ronet's amendment the clergyman might be said to have a c h o i c e, yet, in point of fact, he would have no choice at all ; because, if the great mass of the clergy should accept the g rant, it would hardly be in the power—cert a i n ly would be very invidious, if not dangerous—of any clergyma n t o re j ec t it, and eedeavour to enforce his right of the collection of the arrears due to him. Would it not be better, in fact, as well as in words, to put an end to these claims than to leave the matter open to further dispute ? Would it not be better to to adopt a principle which should be uniform and conclusive in its operation, than one wia;ch, whilst it gave content and harmony to one parish, should plueeje another into all the hor rors of riot and bloodsh ed. The Right Hon. Baronet, towards the close of his speech, had alluded to this plan as . affecting the future welfare of Ireland ; a nd also to some observations which, upon a former occasion, had fallen f rom his Noble Friend (Viscount Howick), and which the Right Honourable Ba ronet seemed to consider as indicative of what the fu ture conduct of the Government m i g ht be with respect to questions relating to the Established Church in He had said so much, and on so many occasions had stated his opinion, with regard to the affairs of the Church of Ireland, that if it had not been for the allusion just made by the Right Hon. Baronet, he (Lord J. Russell) should not have on the present occasion troubled the House with a single word on the subject. The Right Hon. Baronet had, however, been so ex plicit in his allus;ens, that it was impossible to misunderstand them. Although, perhaps, it might have been considered more consistent with his euty to hive passed the matter over in silence, he ( Lord J. Russell) would not ewe - refrain from stating his general opinions on the subject now beftsrp the House.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that the proposition they had made in 1834, which they repeated in 1835, nernely, that a portion of the revenues of the Irish Church should be given for purposes of general education, without disuoc , ion 1 reh pious persuasion, was a very fair one—as one that was most likely to effect a successful compromise between the preten siuns of the different parties in Ireland.—( Hear.) That pro position, however, that means of compromise, af er ere • d s- cussion, had been repeatedly rejected ; and moreover had been repudiated by one party as riot giving anything like a fair settlement of the Catholic claims in Ireland, and by the other as tending wholly to the destruction of the Protestant Esta blishment in that country. That beim , the case, and looking to the present condition of Ireland, he hoped that, by the pro position now submitted to the House, the Church would be rendered more secure by having its revenues immediately de rived from the owners of the soil, of whom the great majority were Protestants ; and that the people would be relieved from the present vexatious mode of collection. It was impossible, however, not to see that there would still remain this great distinction between the Church Establishment in Ireland and that of every other country—that it did not alone provide for the moral and religious instruction of the great body of the people.—( Hear.) It was impossible to hear any Bishop or Clergyman of the Church of England, either in the pulpit or in a political assembly, defend the Establishment of the Church of England without hearing him at the same time dilate on the great advantages derived by the great body of the poorer classes in England from the presence of that Esta blishment in this country.—( Hear, hear.) It was that of which our ecclesiastical Establishment was justly proud, and it was that which made him, along with all who belonged to the lay body, so firmly convinced that the English Church was worthy the support of the people of England.—( Hear, hear.) But that was not the case in Ireland-4 Hear, hear)—and it was impossible not to see that as the numbers and strength of the Roman Catholics in that country increased, the contrast would always be used as a reason for seeking a change in the ecclesiastical condition of the country.—( Hear.) What that change would be must depend on the various views which would be entertained by different persons holding different political and religious opinions. Those who advocated the voluntary principle would say, and naturally say, " Let there be no • Church Establishment in Ireland ; it is indefensible everywhere, but in Ireland peculiarly so." From that principle he need not say be entirely dissented, approving as he did of a Church Establishment in England ; and even that of Ireland, notwithstanding the anomalies it presented, he considered as not only guaranteed by the most solemn laws, but as having a very great influence on the connection between the countries. —( Hear, hear.) But, while he was for maintaining the Church of Ireland and the principle of a Church Establish ment, he could not but think that one day or other, and that before many years, Parliament would, if it did not fall into what he called the lamentable error of the voluntary prin ciple, be obliged to revert to the resolution which had once been introduced into that House, and which provided that the Roman Catholic people of Ireland should have their religious instruction provided for by the State. The proposition he meant was that introduced by Lord Francis Egerton, in which provision was made for the Roman Catho lic Clergy of Ireland. He felt convinced if such a proposi tion were made now, the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, and the great body of the laity of that country, would at once reject it ; that, in the next place, the members of the Scotch Church would be vehemently opposed to it; that the Pro testant Dissenters in this country would be violently against it; and that even in this country a very considerable propor tion of the members of the Established Church would be found in opposition to such a provision. Seeing, there fore, that this was his opinion—an opinion which perhaps it was not prudent for a Minister of the Crown to deliver—he thought that, seeing the question had been mooted by his Noble Friend near him, and by the Right Hon. Baronet, it was a proper time for him to say what he thought would be the ultimate state of things in Ireland if the present plan for the settlement of the Establishment were adopted. It was his opinion that, if the Irish Church retained a moderate measure, sufficient for the spiritual wants of its followers, that it would and could be maintained ; but he believed, on the other hand, that the time would come when the spiritual instructions of several millions of people, the great majority, in fact, of the people of Ireland, would require to be paid and maintained by the State.—( Hear, hear.) He gave his opinion now, al though, perhaps, one not strictly relevant to the present purpose, because, if he had kept entirely silent, it might be supposed that he was entirely opposed to the views of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, or that he entirely concurred in the opinions which had been expressed by his Noble Friend near him. Neither of these things really was the case.—( Hear.) He begged, however, not to be misunderstood, when he talked of the support of the Roman Catholic Clergy; he thought that the great body of the Presbyterians should likewise receive that proper support from the State to which their great services in the cause of religion and morality entitled them. He begged pardon of the House for introducing this opinion, and would merely say, in conclusion, that it was his intention to oppose the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet, being of opinion that the clause as it stood was the one best adapted for im proving the condition of lreland.—( Hear. ) Lord HOWICK said that the Right Hon. Baronet had ex pressed his great regret that in the position which he ( Lord Howick) had the honour to hold, he should express opinions which the Right Hon. Baronet considered would have a ten dency to perpetuate and increase the attacks on the Estab lished Church in Ireland. He (Lord Howick) knew well, from long experience, that when any Member of that House gave expression to views which were in unison with those of a portion of the community which had grievances to complain of, such Hon. Member was invariably charged with exciting and fomenting the discontents which he proposed to appease by conciliation.—(Hear, hear.) It was his firm con viction that if grievances really existed, if they were really felt by any considerable portion of the community, there would be no want of modes of expression, no necessity for any Member of that House to give his opinion for the pur pose of creating disaffection ; but on the other hand, if there were no substantial grievances, he believed that the most in flammatory harangue ever uttered by Minister or Member of Parliament would pass by as unheeded as the idle wind.— ( Hear, hear.) This being his firm conviction he did not be lieve that any injurious result could arise from what he stated the other evening. He was convinced that in the nature of things the question to which he then referred, was one which at some time or other must come under consideration in that House; but if he then wanted any proof of the necessity in the present posture of affairs of stating that opinion which he had long entertained—which he had entertained from the first moment he seriously considered public affairs, that proof was now afforded by the Right Hon. Baronet himself. —( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet now brought for ward as a charge against those who had supported Catholic emancipation, that at the time of its discussion they gave no intimation that any discussion relating to the Protestant Church would at a future time arise. It might be said that by silence one might avoid committing himself to any opinion, but it now appeared that this was not the case, be cause he (Lord Howick)having,had the honour of a seat in that House for three years before the passing of Emancipa tion, was for his silence on that occasion charged with dis guising his opinions. With respect to that charge he could only say that although being then only a new Member of the House, yet so strong was his conviction that the question must some time or other come forward, that he was most anxious before Emancipa.ion to declare his opinion ; but he bowed to the opinions of older Members, and he now regretted thst he did so. He was convinced that it would have made no diffe rence in the carrying of the question, and he always thought that the best policy was to state clearly and frankly to the House and the country what his real opinions were.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to his re.narks of the other evening, he felt that if he had allowed this Bill to go out of that House without stating the opinion he entertained as to the temporary character of the measure now passing—if he had taken that course, he should hereafter, when the sub ject was again brought forward, be placed in this position, that either he must expose himself to the reproaches which the Right Hon. Baronet had applied to the advocates of Emancipation—that of disguising their ulterior objects —or he must have taken a course contrary to what his view of what was justice to the Irish people demanded. —( Hear, hear.) This was his explanation of the grounds which had induced him to come forward to express the opinions he entertained on this question. He had little more to add, except that when the Right Hon. Baronet stated his presumption that the legi timate conclusion of the principles he (Lord Howick) advo cated would necessarily be a transfer of the property of the Established Church to the Roman Catholics, he entirely mistook what in his ( Lord Howick's) opinion was the legiti mate conclusion derivable.—(Hear, hear,) It was impossible in his opinion, that the existingstate of things could continue. —( Hear, hear.) It was impossible that the small minority of Episcopal Protestants should retain long an immense Church Establishment for their exclusive benefit.—( Hear, hear.) The present was, in fact, a state of things in his opinion so op posed to the obvious dictates of natural justice that it could not permanently continue. —( Hear, hear.) He did not hesi tate to say that he for one regretted that at an earlier period of our history the great mistake was made of altering the charac ter of the Church Establishment before the religion of the people was altered. That was a fatal mistake ; but he did not think that that mistake would now be remedied by a transfer of the property of the Protest an t Ch urch to the Roman Catgolics. With the opinions just uttered by his Noble Friend respecting the payment of the Catholic Clergy he perfectly concurred; but he did believe that hereafter it would be found necessary to pay, if not the Catholic Priests, at all events those lay teachers who should be appointed to communicate moral and religious instruction. He believed that ultimately that course would be absolutely necessary.—( Hear, hear.) As he stated on a former evening, the longer the inevitable struggle was deferred the better, in his opinion, for both countries. He believed that by such postponement the cause of justice would have time to gain ground in both countries, and that many who now took views differing from his would hereafter be brought to another opinion. He should not now be led any further into the subject; he felt that, in stating generally what were the grounds on which he had adopted the conclu sions to which he had come he had done all that was necessary to protect him hereafter from any charge cf double dealing. Sir R. PEEL said that the Noble Lord had mistaken him in supposing that it was to him (the Noble Lord) he al luded in his observations. At the time of the Emancipation Act the Noble Lord was, he himself admitted, too young a Member to have his opinion taken into account, and what he ( Sir R. Peel) alluded to was not the opinions of individual Members, but the public declarations of the chosen champions of the Roman Catholics—of the chief promoters of their cause. He was speaking of Mr. Grattan, who in a Bill he brought in for the arrangement of the Roman Catholic question, included in the preamble the following expression :—" Where as the Protestant: religion is the established religion of the , State and is solemnly guaranteed as such by the Act of Settle: ment and the Acct of Union, and whereas it would tend to the stability of the State if the disabilities under which the Roman Calli s eli.ste labour were now removed." Here was no disguis. , ing of opinion; :ID one could be justified in accusing Mr. ' Grattan of an intention to diminish the securities of the Pro- THE SUN-, LONDON ; TUESDAY; JULY .24 1835. testent Church, or of interfering with its property. No; on I the contrary, his ( Sir R. Peel's) decjaration was, that at the time of the passing of the Bill they had the most distinct and positive assurances from the most eminent authorities, that in their opinion the restoration of civil equality was perfectly compatible with the maintenance of the Established Church. He was alluding to Mr. Canning, to Lord Piunket, who told them the Established Church was the essential bond between the countries, and that he would throw Catholic Emancipation to the winds if he thought that one of its indirect results would be to injure the Establishment. He was speaking of Lord Castlereagh—of all elm had not disguised their opinions, but had given the most solemn assurances that, by the removal of the disabilities, they were only taking fresh security for the Church. So much for that part of the question. With respect to any opinion which the Noble Lord might choose to express or maintain, as an individual Member, he ( Sir R. Peel) was not disposed to quarrel, but he bad objected to the Noble Lord's speech as being the speech of a 111 nester of the Crown.—( Hear, hear.) That was what made it absolutely necessary for him ( Sir R. Peel)to be equally explicit as to his views of the arrangements now making, and the light in which they ought to be taken. The Noble Lord (Howick) con. tended that it was perfectly right and absolutely necessary for all persons, at all times to express their opinions, and yet he proved, in the course of his speech, that his rule might some times be infringes on, and that in all cases it was not appro priate for a Minister of the Crown to be so frank. The Noble Lord said that he had made up his mind as to the future fate of the Irish Church, arid yet they had it, on the Noble Lord's authority, that it would at present be highly dangerous to ex press any opinion on the subject.—( Cheers.) It appeared, then, that there might be occasions in which the expression of opinion ought to be dispensed with. The Noble Lord had also said the longer the people of Ireland could be persuaded to acquiesce in the present Establishment, the greater would be the harmony of the empire. His ( Sir Robert Peel's) fear was that the speech they had heard from the Noble Lord the other night would disturb that harmony.—( Hear, hear.) Lord HO WICK put it to the Right Hon. Baronet and to the House whether the Right Hon. Baronet had alluded fairly to what he ( Lord Howick) said the other evening. In the first place, in saying that there was a wide diff rence be tween his opinion and those of his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), the Right Hon. Baronet was greatly mistaken. He (Lord Howick) thought that when the two opinions came to be closely scrutinised there would not appear any such wide d;fferenca between them. The Right Hon. Baronet had also accused him ( Lord Howick) of saying that men should at all times state their opinions, and of afterwards departing from that rule. In so stating the Right Hon. Baronet had not repeated correctly what fell from him on those points. He (Lord Howick) said in the first place, with regard to opinions, that it was the safest and best policy on questions of great im portance not to conceal or keep back views on which it after wards might prove necessary to act.—( Hear, hear.) This was the substance of what he said, and he never meant to put forth so absurd an opinion as that, it was necessary for every indi vidual Member to trouble tine House with a statement of all his views and opinions. Then the Right Hon. Baronet had accused him of saying that it was sometimes dangerous to ex press an opinion ; what he ( Lord Howick) said was, that now it would be dangerous to enter into any explanation of political opinions, as it would be impossible to carry any measure founded on them through the House. Sir R. PEEL had no wish to magnify the differences be tween the two Noble Lords, nor was his inference drawn from their conflicting arguments, but never was he more mistaken if he did not hear the Noble Secretary for the Home Department say that " he could not concur in his ( Sir R. Peel's) opinion, but that neither could he subscribe to those of his Noble Friend."—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.) This was no in ference drawn from conflicting sentiments but from words ac tually heard.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. CLAY, if he were to choose between the plan of the Noble Lord and that of the Right Honourab'e Baronet, should certainly prefer the former. Because while he thought that whatever was objectionable in principle was equally applicable to both, inasmuch as both involved a grant of public money, still, as the plan of the Noble Lord com pelled the tithe-owner to take the money, and that of the Right Hon. Baronet left a door open for resistance, the for mer should have his support. The plan of the Noble Lord went to the purchase of peace, while that of the Right Hon. Baronet involved a sacrifice of public money, without appeas ing the dissensions by which Ireland was now troubled. He wished the public clearly to understand the monstrous nature of the proposition which thiS grant implied. It was no less than this—that we gave indemnity, by a grant of public money, to certain subjects of. the Crown of England, against whom there were legal claims to a large amount. This indemnity was against debts fairly due, but which they could not recover, from fraudulent debtors, and which the Ministers of the Crown also declared their inability to recover. The claim ought to be either abandoned or asserted. On what ground of justice could they propose to take one-fourth of his property from the titheowner ? Surely it could not be on the score of collection, which at the highest rate could not come to more than ten per cent. If the tithes were a just claim, why not assert it by en forcing the law ? Those on the opposite side of the House must either be actuated by party feelieg in not seeking the enforcement of the law, or else they were most pusillanimous in not acting up to the principle which they professed. If the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had no other ground for the agitation of a repeal of the Union, the Church Esta blishment would be in itself sufficient. Were the House to grant the sum it would only bean adjournment—as the Noble Lord the Secretary at War admitted—of the great principle at issue, and, under these circumstances, he ( Mr. Clay) would not consent to tax the industry of the people of England and Scotland for the purpose of adjourning the final adjustment of this question for a short period, and relieving the fraudulent debtor, who re fused to pay that which it was asserted was legally due of him. Lord STANLEY rejoiced that the experience of the last four years had taught his Noble Friend the Secretary of State fur the Home Department, the imprudence of manifesting any difference of opinion which might exist in the Cabinet -( Hear, hear)—but it was surprising, with the views which the Noble Lord the Secretary at War now entertained, that he could have supported the appropriation clause. The Noble Lord ( Lord John Russell) did consider the appropriation principle as a fair and honourable compromise ; but if his Noble Friend the Secretary of State thought that this was a fair and reasonable compromise, he knew that there was at that time in the Cabinet itself one who thought that it neither could nor would be satisfactory to the country. Viscount HO WICK did think that it would have been satisfactory. Lord STANLEY was now surprised at the ishible Lord's change. He was surprised at what he had communicated to to the House, that he did not entertain any sanguine hopes of the success of that principle. But he ( Lord Stanley) would pass by this. It was satisfactory to him to see the doctrine universally recognised, an d to see it admitted by the Noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, that the appropriation clause was abandoned—that whilst it violated the principles contended for by one party, it was not accepted by the others. The appropriation clause, and he thanked God for it, was now given up by the Secretary of State, and was condemned both on the one side and on the other.—( Cheers. ) What a justification to those who had all along opposed it was the admission of hie Noble Friend.—( Hear, hear.) lie ( Lord Stanley) had listened with surprise to the speech of the lion. Member who had just sat down, and to the manner in which that speech had brought him to vote. The Hon. Gentleman had thought it convenient to taunt them with the gross injustice of giving up any thing to the landowners, lay or clerical. He had charged those who differed from him with want of firmness and pusillanimity; with not enforcing the legal claims, and with not pressing their demands for the debts which were due. Would they, said the Hon. Member, in any English case, have permitted such injustice ? No, not if there had been ten Ratheormacs instead of one, would they have prevented the enforcing of a legal claim of this kind in England. The Hon. Member had argued for the enforcement of the legal debt, but to what conclusion had he come ? To give no grant of the public money, and yet to vote for the pro position of the Noble Lord and against the proposition of his Right Horn. Friend, and thus, without endeavouring to collect any which remained due, he would extinguish all tithe arrears. That was the conclusion of the man who, in his speech, was for enforcing the law and upholding the rigid demands of justice ; and till he ( Lord Stanley) had heard it, he did not believe that any man would have proposed to take away the legal claim of the clergy to the debt, without giving any com pensation whatever. He was happy, however, that this was noz a question which Parliament was called upon to consider. The difference between the Noble Lord opposite and his Noble Friend near him was this, that the Noble Lord would extinguish all claim to the arrears of tithes, although he would at the same time grant 260,000/. or 300,000/, an indefinite sum, wholly. His Noble Friend said that whilst he would grant 300,0001., which was not an equivalent for the amount due, it was but just to keep alive the demand for the arrears of tithes. He would not extinguish them, he would not enact that they should not be collected ; bet he would offer that amount as a fair and liberal and equitable compromise to in duce the titheowners to forego their demands. This was the only question between his Hon. Fri e nd near hi m and the Govern): mcnt. Moreover, he would not abandon the claim ; but if the Hon. Gentleman wished to place the question on the low prin ciples of his money, his Noble Friend proposed to grant the 300,0001., not to extinguish the tithes; but that such persons as chose to accept the compromise might transfer their claims to the Government, leaving the Executive Government to press for the re-payment, when, and in what cases it might think fit, and to recover the amount for the people of England and the people of Scotland. Now, which plan was nearest to the views of the Hon. Gentleman—which would best keep alive the debt which was nearest the non-extinguishment of a just debt ?—( Hear, hear.) Which would abandon the entire lia bility—which would give every encouragement to the resist ance of the law—the proposition of his Hon. Friend or that of the Noble Lord, for which the Hon. Gentleman was about to vote that night ?—( Chum ) Which would give the fairest equivalent to the tithe-owner? The Noble Lord pro posed to give an indefinite sum—he did not know the amount —and, in return, he proposed that the tithe-owner should abandon the whole amount of his claim, the aggregate of which the Noble Lord was not aware of. He would give t h e amount absolutely ; lie neither knew the amount that wo u ld b e demanded, nor that which could be a f for ded ; it all depended would on the amount which tine Government s ho u ld recover of the original debt. That was the prop o s al of th e Government ; they du e ; buuldt, if the enable him to grant an amount in return which ought to be, and whilst his Honourable Friend said that he would grant ti n e same amount—he held the sum not as a full equivalent-- titheowners h e a• acknowledgedould hand ta t over e l r a r t g h e e l i r debtcl aimw was s which he thought would be satisfactory, considering the trou ble and difficulty which the titheowners would have in collect ing the arrears. The amount would be paid by tho Stag;, and if they handed over their claims, well and good; if not, the law was open to them, and they would have every assist ance on the part of the Government to enforce it.—( Cheers.) That waS the proposition of his Right Honourable Friend ; and would the Honourable Gentleman say that there was most justice in that of the Noble Lord or of his Right Hon. Friend? —( Heer, hear.) The Noble Lord had abandoned, forced by the argument of his Right Hon. Friend—the Noble Lord bad told them that h,•, had abandoned the limitation to the last two years loan. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he was indifferent about it. Lord STANLEY—But it was not a matter of indifference. A matter of indifference! Why, the largest views of general justice which he had ever heard put forward by the Govern ment or by any Member of Parliament had been advanced by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets ; but the strangust indifference had also been shown by the Go vernment as to what they (the Opposition) considered to be the principles ofjustice:--( Hear, hear.) Differing, however, from the arguments of the Noble Lord he was willing to come to the same conclusion, and he was ready to take arrears of tithes of 1834, 1835, 1836. and 1837. He (Lord Stanley) would not enter upon the questi.,n of deficiency of the sum of 300,0001., or of the definite sum of 260.00 a, added to an indefinite amount which the Noble Lord thought he could recover. That was not the condition on which his Right Honourablo Fiend had proposel his amendment. He would however, deal with the 260,0001. and the amount to be recovered. The Noble Lord said that they would be giving no option to the Clergymen. The Noble Lord did not object to give the option, enforced by the argu ment of his Right Hon. Friend. The Noble Lord thought that it would be most just ; ho was compelled to admit that they ought to give the option where they took the property ; but then the Noble Lord said that the option could not really be exercised, because it would be invidious on the part of a Clergyman, when his parishioners saw others take the grant, not to accept the amount, but to proceed for the arrears of tithes against the owners. Now he ( Lord Stanley) did not deny the injustice of the option—he did not deny the extent of the iuconvenience. It would and ought to weigh deeply in the minds of the proprietors, both lay and clerical, and it would induce them to accept the instalment. But, at the same time, the mend force of these considerations was a very different thing from giving the titheowner no option, from forcing bim to accept the instalment. In spite of all that had been said, and all that might be said, about the expenditure of 27,0001. to recover 12,000/. which he had heard twenty times repeated in that House, he (Lord Stanley) did not regret that he had incurred that expense ; and when he recollected the considerations which, though he could not state their purport, then marked the deliberations of the Government, he would say, that if it had not been for unfortunate circumstances over which he had ro controul, that expense would have had the effect of secur ing not only the 12,0001., but also a large proportion of the amount which was due. If the plan of the Hon. Gentleman who would that night vote against his speech—( Laughter)— were adopted, it would be effectual and decisive, but it con tained that superlative degree of ,injustice to which the Go vernment had not yet worked up their minds; Government took the intermediate course, they would not abolish the legal claims without compensation; whilst they (the Opposition) proposed that which would perpetrate an injustice, they made a sound proposition founded on strict justice, they kept alive the arrears, they transferred them to the Executive Govern ment from all parties, high and low, rich and poor, solvent and insolvent, that wherever they were able the law might be rendered effectual, as it bad already been in several distin guished instances. —( Cheers. ) Mr. CLAY explained. Lord STANLEY thought he very clearly apprehended the arguments of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member wished to vote for the total abolition of arrears, and, notwithstanding, to vote for a grant in shape of compensation, thus opposing his own prineiple.—k Hear, hear.) , CLAY thought both the proposition of the Government and that of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite were bad, but he supported the proposition of Government, because it was less objectionable. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN thought the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet ought to be extended to the sum of money commonly known by the name of the Million Laan ; it had been proposed in 1836 to remit it, and he did not see that any Bill would at present be perfect or just without it; for it had been found fair in 1836, and it was just as fair in principle in 1,838. As regarded the Million Loan, it ought to be remitted to the Clergy, unless in cases where the amount given by the Government had been subsequently recovered from the tithe payer, and, of course, in this case he would not extend the remission of the loan. With respect to the subsequent ar rears, he thought it would be well to grant some compensa tion, but with respect to both propositions, he would never allow public advantage to interfere with the principles of justice. Mr. RE DDINGTON wished it to be understood that he did not think the present measure would accomplish a final settlement; and, though he would support it, his hatred to tithes and his opposition to them would be as great as pre viously to its passing. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would offsr a few observations to the House before they came to a division. The first proposition of the Government was not what may now appear before the House—it was that in case the loan of 640,0001. had been remitted, the Government would collect as much as possible of what was due by the landlords, not by the occupying tenants, and this was to be applied to the demands of the Church. As an equivalent 'they demanded that the Church should remit the arrears, not of any given year, but those due generally by the occupying tenant, and be would then state again his firm conviction that whatever arrangement they might make would be incomplete if the occupying tenant were not remitted his arrears. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had stated that there were cases where the occupying tenant, so far from being a needy person, whose position required that the arrears should be remitted, he was, in some cases in a better situation with regard to property than the landlord—that he was more wealthy and solvent. There might, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted, be such cases; but the majority in a vast proportion were persons in circumstances the very reverse of wealthy or solvent, at least in comparison to the landlords. The divided balance of evidence was against the existence of many such cases es that cited by the Noble Lord. Would any Honourable Gentleman who heard him say that the majority of the tenants were at all to be compared to the landlords in wealth or solvency ? Would not every Honour able Member who had any acquaintance with Ireland admit that the very reverse was the fact in the great `majority of cases? Did any Hon. Member believe that there etas any possibility of recovering the more ancient arrears from the oc cupying tenant ? Did the Noble Lord think it possible to re cover them, or did the Right Hon. Baronet suppose that any one of the writers of those fifty letters which he had received b.lieves that there was the remotest possibility of their col lection ? There was direct and undoubted evidence that the contrary was the fact. Was the recovery of arrears become more facile in proper-lion to the length of time they were due ? Were Irish arrears, like wine, improved by age ?—( Laughter. ) He w ou ld appeal to any Hon. Member who heard him. With respect to the compensation to the clergy, he would say that in calling upon them to remit those arrears, they demanded a very poor sacrifice, for they would nut be able to obtain from the occupying tenants those as rears which they claim. He was told that by refusing an option to the clergy they were in terfering with, and violating the rights of property. He could not cite a better answer to this argument than that adduced by his Hon. Friend near him, namely, the Slavery Abolition Bill, which left no option to the proprietors of slaves in the West Indies. The whole Bill was a compromise between two contending parties. The Government had stepped in between the tithe-owner and the defaulter, and undertook to say for itself how much one should pay and how much another should receive. They were not called upon to sacrifice any de mands for tithes which would in future accrue. The object of the Bill was to present expense and litigation, to afford the Clergy compensation for the amount of tithes which they were likely to receive, and when the House considered that a great portion of the tithes were totally irrecoverable, they would see that the amount of compensation was fairly proportioned. Now he would direct the attention of the House to the differ ence between both the plans proposed. One was, that in case a concession was made, the public would obtain a security that the purpose for which this concession was granted should be fulfilled. If, however, they sdopted the principle of the Right Hon. Gentleman, there was no security that the concession would be productive of peace or tranquillity in the country. The Right Hon. Baronet had proposed that the arrears should be vested in the Government, arid that they should have a per fectly arbitrary power as to the defaulters —they should pro ceed against them for the arrears, and those to whom they should grant a remission. That was a most objectionable power to vest the Government with, and he protested against it. Let there be no misunderstanding nor any charge of delusion at a future period, for he distinctly repeated that he would not undertake to take to collect a single farthing of arrears from the occupying tenants. With respect to the landlords the case was totally distinct. From them the tithes could be recovered, and they ought. The concession was for the purpose of securing peace to the country by giving peace to the occupying tenant ; there was a better chance of securing the efficient working of the Bill, and he would be then enabled to say to the people of England that if they sacrificed a sum of mon ey they would at least have an equivalent. Mr. O'CONNELL did not ask the vote of compensation in order that they should go begging about the couutry asking w hat Clergyman would take ten shillings, and what Clergy man would take fifteen shillings in the pound; but he asked in order to be so arranged as to secure peace by leaving no op tion. If they extinguished the demands of the Clergymen they would secure their objects. Did the Noble Lord expect that all the clergymen would consent to accept the compensation ? He could tell him they would not, and he therefore would place in a position of hostility to the Irish people those who would He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that the Go vernment refuse.h had not gone far enough, they ought to include those cases of tithe arrears which were the subject of litigation, and allow the clergymen a certain portion of the costs. On these grounds he (Mr. O'Connell) respectfully b u t t ota ll y repu. dieted the plan of the Right Honourable Gentleman. Tue Right Honourable Gentleman had stated that his plan was in accordance with Mr. Grattan's Bill, but that measure was re. pudieted by the Catholics of Ireland before it was re j ecte d by that House; and the Catholics of Ireland, therefore, had not hi n g whatever to do with it. A n d as to the opinions of Lord Plunket on the subject, though they were enforced with the most consummate talent, and though he (Mr. O'Con nell) had the greatest respect for them on that account, he felt bound to state that the Irish Catholics repudiated them too ; and, in proof of it, withdrew their Hation from his hands, an d transferred them to tho se o f t h e then Honourable Member for Westminster.—( Laughter.) The Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire had ssmenrted the e l l n of the Right Hon. Baronet, and referred to hi e own proeeedings in doing se. But hoW steed the ease in respect to the Noble Lord ? The Noble Lord had expended 27,0001. in the recovery of 12,000/. arrears of tithes. Why did not the Noble Lord answer that taunt against his course of proceeding ? And yet, though the Noble Lord expended that sum, he was quite .• ‘• in error in supposing that he bad made any way in the recovery of the arrears of tithe in Ireland. The Legislature was now about to attack the landlords. A_ worse experiment could not be made if the stability - of • the tithe system were the point in view. The Protestant landlords would now join with the Catholics, and the payment of the tithes would be refused by them conjointly instead of separately, as at present, unless some plan very different from that of the Right Honourable Baronet were adopted. Even now, at all the tithe meetings which took place in Ireland, it was usual to find a Protestant gentleman of station and property take the chair, Protestant gentlemen of wealth and respectability propose the resolutions. If, with that fact before the House, any attempt was made to keep up the system of collecting the old arrears of tithes, the:e was not, he would be bound to say, the remotest prospect of peace, quietness. settlement, or even adjournment of the ques tion, and all its evil consequences in Ireland. Hi (Mr ; O'Con nell) was one of those who wished for an adjournment of the question. He fully concurred in the wide and stat. sman-like views of the Noble Lord the Secretary at War.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) All that could be purchased by the scheme of the Government was a postponement of the question. What ' he (Mr. O'Connell) desired was, that every existing incum bent of Church livings in Ireland should have his pr.ifits for life; but that a settlement should take place on his death, by which all future incumbents should be paid proportionately to their services, and the residue be devoted;tu the furtherance of education and other national purposes —to the benefit of the public ; in short, he should implore the Hou-e, in dea ing with the plan before it, tot begin with expunging altogether the outstanding arrears of tithe in Irela id and by that means to give quiet and peace to the resideat landholders. Under these circumstances, he should oppose the Right Hon. Baro net's proposition. Mr. SHIEL did not mean to enter on the whole merits of the ease, but to address himself to one point in the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet. With the greatest respect he begged to suggest a difficulty in that plan which he did not see how the Right Hon. Baronet could get over. What did the Right Hon. Baronet intend to do in regard to executors ? Would executors have the power to accept the 50 per cent. proposed if left without the protection of an act of Parliament? He (Mr. Shiel) thought they would not. Sir R. PEEL was understood to say across the table that they would have the power to consent to the proposition. Mr. SHIEL—The Right Hon. Baronet had said that exe cutors would have the power to consent to the proposition ; But he (Mr. Shiel) thought they would not unless, indeed, they had the sanction of the Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer for every case of acceptance. In every in stance in which a Clergyman died leaving property of the nature of tithes in trust, the executors would have no power to accept less than the sum so demised, and no discretion left them in the matter, but would be compelled to enforce it. But was the previous conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet consis tent with the course he now pursued? The Hou s e Would be enabled to judge from the (acts. When in 1835 the Right Hon. Baronet brought forward his plan for the settlement of tithes proposed by the Right Hon. and Gallant Member for Launceston, did he make the collection of the au-ears an element in it ? He did not. Yet, what did he do now ? Now that be was out of office he suggests to those that are in a different course from that which he had himself pursued when in possession of power. The plan of the Government did not essentially differ from the plan of the Right Honour able Baronet in 1835. It was founded on the pre-'up position that Ireland was injured by the collection of tithe from the occupying tenant of the land. That was quite in conformity with the . principles of the Right Honour able Baronet's plan. Why did he, then, propose an other, the effect of which could only be to mar the good that might be derived from it ? He (Mr. Sheil) did not mean to say that the present tithe measure would succeed in Ireland=-(Hear, hear)—he had never offered even a prediction to that effect ; the Honourable Gentlemen opposite did ; they asserted that the country would be tranquillized if the payment of that impost were placed on the landlords. What did they do to advance it ? If the plan proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet were adopted, they were not to look for peace in Ireland ; if the arrears of tithe were to be collected at the option of individuals, there was no pas sible ground to hope for tranquillity in that country. The Government proposed to discharge the occupying tenants— that, according to the expressed assertion of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, was the main promovent of peace for Ireland; yet what course did they suggest? To give the Clergy a power of negativing that project, and to leave to individual caprice, and individual passion, the peace of the country. That was one of his (Mr. Shiel's) strong objections to the, plan of the Right Hon. Baronet. On soother part of the case he (Mr. Shell) did not think the objection taken by the Right Hon. Baronet to the speech—the remarkable speech--of the Noble Lord the Secretary at War—(Laughter) —for which he ( Mr., Sheil) thanked the. Noble Lord—he did not think they were quite appropriate. 'he Right Hon. Baronet had said in the early part of the debate that he heard the speech of the Noble Lord with regret— Sir R. PEEL was understood to say that he could have said no such thing, as he was absent when the speech alluded to was delivered.--( Laughter.) Mr. SI-HE L then said that if the Right Hon. Baronet was not present to hear it, the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, who reflected his opin'ons—his fidus Achates— was —( A laugh.) At least the Pylades and Orestes of the party, the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet the Mem ber for Pembrokeshire, were there to reply to it. Lord ST kN LE Y—To a speech made three days ago. Mr. SHIEL said, that fact was important, inasmuch as it showed the necessity of replying at once. However, what struck him in that speech was the circumstance that the No ble Lord approved of the appropriation principle in 1835, though he did not believe in its efficacy as a remedy now. He (Mr. Shiel) did not perceive any difference whatever between the speech of the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home department and the Noble Lord the Secretary at `Var.— ( Laughter.) He had read them both— he knew their politi cal history well—and he was quite at a loss to discover any essential difference—any difference in point of principle—be tween them. It was the interest of the Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House to saw dissension in the Cabinet— ( Laughter)—but in that he tru tel they would fail. He was sure they would fail.—(Laughter.) When he found the House affirming the resolution of the Right Hon. Baronet in 1835 he c 'red' little' for any attempt on the other side to sow dissensions; but if the Government gave up the appropriation principle, he would unhesitatingly say that they abandoned altogether their claims to public respect. —( Hear.) Sir R. PEEL rose merely to address himself to the only two points ured by the Hon. and Leared Member against his prop( sition g . Nothing gratified him more than the fact that after all the cogitation of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man, he could adduce no greater difficulty to urge against it than that relating to the duties of executors. The plain an. swer he (Sir R. Peel) should give to this objection was to state that, by the ordinary operation of the law as it stands, executors had the power to accept the best terms offered them. So much for the Hon. Gentleman's first objection. He (Sir R. Peel) would now come to the second. The Hon. Gentle man had said that in 1835 he (Sir R. Peel) proposed a cer tain sum in lieu of the arrears of Tithes, and soefar the Honourable Gentleman was right.— ( Cries of " Hear.") He ( Sir R. Peel) had at that time a balance of 360,0001. at his disposal, and he had proposed it as a compensation for one year's arrears of Tithes. Four years' arrears were, however, now due, and yet the Hon. Gentleman proposed to give less for those four years than he ( Sir R. Peel) did for one year. So much for the Hon. Gentleman's second objection. With respect to the particular observations of the Hon. Member, in regard to his (Sir R. Peel's) conduct towards the Govern neent on this question, he ( Sir R. Peel) might be permitted to say that he should always feel inclined to correct the Green wich observations by reference to those of another observatory. —( Cheers, and great laughter.) After a few words from Lord MORPFTH, The Committee divided—. Ayes Noes Majority against the amendment —2l On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. HOME pro posing the omission of the clau , e altogether, as being framed for the benefit of the Church of Ireland at the expense of the people of England. Sir IL PE E L could not at that moment support the propo sition of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, whose consent oppo sition to the interests of the Irish Church rendered it prudent to consider seriously befure acquiescing in any motion of his on that subject. Lord J. RUSSELL said that it would be very desi , able to avoid delay, and wished to know when the Right Hon. Gentleman would be prepared to enter on this discussion. Sir R. PEEL said that he was far from wishing or asking for any delay. If the House pleased it might proceed on the motion, but he would reserve himself for the third reading. Perhaps the Noble Lord could say when he would be pre pared to take the third reading. Lord J. RUSSELL, after some consultation with his colleagues, hoped to be able to bring the third reading before the House on Thursday. Sir R. PEEL would be ready 'to give his decided ouilion on Thursday. Mr. HUME pressed his motion, and the House divided— For the original clause For its rejection 43 Majority On our return we found Sir R. PEEL declaring bis in tention of moving, in reference to the next clause, the total remission of arrears to the actual occupier, excepting in cases where he should also be the total and absolute possessor as well as occupier. On the sth clause being proposed, Lord STANLEY said that the loss of the 640,000/. which had been paid, was caused to the public because of the ap propriation principle which the Government had introduced, and which they had since given up.—(Cheers. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the appropriation of the 640,0001. was proposed long before the appropriation clause was even introduced. Lord STANLEY repeated that it was the appropriation principle of 1834 which led to the 640,0001. being paid to the Protestant Clergy of Ireland. Sir R. PEEL proposed soma verbal amendment, which were ag reed to. Mr. O' C QI•INELL proposed that the words zt the end of the clause should be left out. Tbc Committee then divide& when the numbers were— Ayes N.ae; Majority I% 34 We subsequently understood tha% it was Sir R. Peel, and not Mr. O'Conrwii, who moved and carried this Amendment. CLitt , :es 1.-:t to it inqlusi%e were then agreed to. go r!ia:r, , e 12 ', •ing proposed, Lord MORPETH' skigesttest Oay the costs of litigation should be paid by the p,eron who should recover in the action. Sir R, pqgi, thought that the Treasury, and not the C'vely, ought to bear these expenses, an , l moved an amendment to that effect ; on which The House divided, when there appeared— For the clause 62 Agairist it Atijarity The clause was then agreed to, as were also the remaining clauses. The House then resumed, the report was received, and the Bill ordered for the third reading on ThUrsday.. The County of Cl.rre (Ireland) Advance Bill, which stood for the third readin , / was withr%-.rwn ; And lease was given to i;ri:•.g in a fr.. , sh Bill for raisiog money ri:quired on the secu: - ity of the couot ) rates, ins:ead of the manner previously proposed. The Sea Coast Irelaqd) Bill was, on the motion of Lord MORPETH, viithdrawn. The Tiihes and Land Merger Bill was read a third time and passed. The Liverpool Clergy Endowment Bill was read a second time, and ordered to he committed. The Arms and Guopowder (Iceland) Bill went through a Committ• e, and was ordered to be report. d •The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER move,dtbe third rending of the Schools ( Scotand) Bill. Mr. GIL L.ON said that late as the hour was he felt it to be his duty to state his objections to the Bill.—( Loud cries of Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Brotherion.") He objected to the way in which the money was to be raised, and he thought the only effect which such a measure could have, would be to in troduce a narrow and sectarian system of education in Scot land. He also objected to the arrangements with respect to schoolmasters, and he could only say that the Bill would not satisfy those at whose instance it had been brought forward. It %%RS a measure fraught with injustice to the Scotch Dis senters ; and before such a Bill was passed, the Government should recollect that it was from the Dissenters of Scotland they received the best supplies. He would not be discharging his duty if he did not move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. P. HO WARD seconded *he motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended the Bill, and he hoped the House would allow it to pass the final stage. Mr. WYSE, if he received an assurance from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a general inquiry into the subject of Education in Scotland should take place, would support the motion for the third reading of this Bill, but otherwise he must oppose it. The House then divided, when there appeared.-- For the third reading ..• 42 For the amendment l7 Majority 25 The Bill was then read a third time end passed. Mr. F. MAUL E moved the third reading of the Parlia mentary Burghs (Scotland) Ball. Mr GIL LON moved the re-insertion of clause 6. The House divided on the motion of the Hon. Member, For the re-insertion of the clause 6 Against it ... Majority against it —4o EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND. Upon the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, a Select Co nmit ee was granted to inquire into the state cf Education in Scotland. Committee to be named to-morrow (this day). The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-pest One o'Clock. WILFUL MURDER AGAINST MYERS AND MRS. POW. ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MR. POW. (Concluded from Tke Sun of yesterday.) Caroline Hastings, who stated that she was a married woman, and lived at No. 31, Queen-street, New_cut, Lambeth, was next examined —Had known the deceased for the last two years. He had lodged its witness's house for the last twelve months of the saki time with a lady, who he (deceased) said was his wife. The deceased was of very intem perate habits, constantly drinking gin. The deceased had informed witness that he had 601. per annum ; 41. paid monthly to himself, and 11. monthly to his (deceased's) infant daughter. Witness also understood that Mrs. Pow had an allowance of lOs. weekly, but she (witness) did not know from what source it came. On Wednesday week last Mrs. P.iw and Mr. Myers called upon witness and informed her of the de ceased's death. FOREMAN—Do you know a man named Pite ? Witness—l do, Sir; he was in the habit of coming to see Mr. and Mrs. Pow whilst they lodged 01 r 4 house. Mr. BODKIN (to the witness)—Now, on your oath, are you sot aware that Mrs. Pow left her husband and went to live with Pite? Witness—Yes, Sir, I am aware ot that circumstance. Martha Bullen, keeping a coffee-house at No. 205, Tatenham-court road, was next examined; her testimony, however, merely went to prove that, about three weeks back, Mrs. Pow and Mr. Myers took a lodging for the night at her house. Mrs. Chapman, the landlady of the house where the deceased died, and who was the first witness examined in the case, was re.called, by her own wean , and said that she had forgot then to state to the Jury that Mr. Myers had, whilst the deceased was on the floor, taken a pint and half of blood from him, during which he had made the observation, " Why, Mrs. Chapman, he will yet rally and make your house shake again, for he (deceased) is a very powerful man." The whole of the evidence being coycluded, the CORONER summed up at considerable length ; a ft er which die room was cleared ofstrangers. At the expiration of two hours the Jdry returned a verdict of " Wil ful murder against Henry Myers, and also against Angelina Pow (the deceased's wife), as an accessary before the fact." The inquiry termi— nated at seven o'clock. NEW PUBLICATIONS.--Mr. Colburn, of Great Marlborough.street, has just published the following interesting New Works in History, Biography, and Travel :-1. Captain Spencer's Tra vels in the Western Caucasus, &c., in 1836, a Sequel to his "Travels it Circassia," 2 vols. Bvo., v ith Plates, 285.-2. Dr. Jenner's Life ant Correspondence, by Dr. Bsron, row first Published complete, 2 vote. Bvo., with Portraits, 245.-3. The American in Paris, a New View of Society in that Capital, 2 vols. post Bvo., 185.-4. The Veterar. ; or, 40 Years la the British Service, by Captain John Harley, 2 vols., 218.- 5 . Mr. Bennett's Guide to North Wales, 1 vol. Bvo., with 20 etchings, by Alfred Clint, 18s. bound.-6. The British Senate in 1838, kirming Second Series of Random Recollections of the Lords-and Commons, by the author of" The Bench and the Bar," &c., 23ors. 215.-7. The Rost Fancier's Manual, comprising an Atcount of,the Culture and Propaga tion of Roses, &c., by Mrs. Gore, 1 voly6aatud, 10s. 61-8. A Visit to China in 1836-7, by C. T. Downing. 7 Esq., M.R.C.S., 3 vo's., with lustrations, 315.6d.-9 Queen Jl'zabeth and Her Times, a Series of Original Letters, dedicated by permission to the Queen, 2 vols. Bvo-, with Portraits, 32s.—And 10. The Duche ss o f M arl b orough's Priva te Correspondence, illustr a ti ve o f t h e Court of Queen Anne, with her Sketches and Opinions of her Contemporaries, second edition, 2 vole. Bvo., with portraits, 28s. MRS. JAMESON'S MEMOIRS OF THE BEAUTIES OF THE COURT OF CHARLES IL—Mr. Colburn has just issued the con cluding Part of the new edition of this beautiful work, which is now complt ted in six Parts at only 7s. 6d. each, and comprises 21 splendid Portraits. The graphic portions of the work are truly worthy b o th of the exquisite graces of those surpassing beauties whose forms they coin' memorate, and the skill and genius of the mighty masters ofp — Ortraiture whose works are thus multiplied. We have the muitum in parvo of the finest forms of female beauty in the world—the choicest excellence of England's ancient school of port rait painting..: -the most masterly exe cution which modern engraving can bestoet—and an interesting Memoir of each of the celebrated characters' thus. -ought before our eyes by the chaste and judicious pen of one of the most accomplished female writers of the day. Nothing, in fact, is wanting to make this publication pe r ' fect in its kind. The paper and typography are of the most superior de scription, and the price is moderate in the extreme.—Dublin Eveniag - Mail. A short time ago, a turkey cock belonging to Mrs. Addeman, of Rossington Bridge, was observed to be wandering about in a desolate state. At length the bird found a hen's nest containing only one egg, and began to slt tipon it. This circumstance having, been observed by the farmer's wife, sic placed underneath him eigkt hen's eggs. He continued faithful in the work of incubation, and may now be seen strutting about the farm-yard with eight chickens w i .th all pater nal care and affection. —Doncaster Gazette. An old lady, remarkable for her confused idea of the meaning of words, dcsc;ibedo clear summer evenhig thus:—" was A beautiful bright night-ithe moon made everytk:mg as light as a cork 1. -- New York Mirror. -.!!! PATENT LEVER WATCHES, With silver double-bottom cases £6 6 ° With silver hu n ti ng cases • 6 16 ° This celebrated cons4uction (the most accurate on which a watch can be made) is offered, with the, latest improvements , i. e. the detached escapement, jewelletlviii four holes, capped' hand to mark the seconds, hard enapaellial, and maintaining poweg to continue going while winding a/at the above price, by T. CO X fAVORY'S, Working Silv er an d Goldsmith, 47, Cornhill, London, (Seven doo rs from Gram-church -street.) N.B.—Second-hand Watches purchased in exchange. ___ .._..2_____...- ___ R 11?7 H.S. -- On the 17th inst., at Fulmer-pl ace , B uc k s, t h e lady of Henry Waterton, E s q., o f a daughter. On the 19th inst., at Springfield House, the lady of John R. Shaw, Esq., of Arrow Hall, Cheshire, of a daughter. On the • , od inst., in N Albion-street, Hyde•p ar k , the 3ady of 1 1 . . Middleton, Esq., of a d aug h ter . On the 23d inst., in Brunswick -square, Airs. Henry Cheape, o f a daughter. On the 22.(1 inst., in Lower Berkele,y.street, Mrs. Maberly, of a son. On the 12th inst., in A lontague.square, the lady F. G. of W. Farmer, Esq., of a son. On the a daughter. l 2th inst., a t t h e Grove, Blackheath, Mrs. Rickards, of MARRIED. On the 19th inst., at St. George's, Hanover -square, Henry, se' ll of J. Bowden, Esq., of Grosvenor plsce, to Marianne Cathee.ner youngest daughter of the late Major .General Sir M. Burp o ynet Bart., of Sutton Park, Bedfordshire. On the 19th inst. , at Tottenham Church, Calvert Toulm'in, ' Esq'' of Lode-place, Regent's -park, the youngest son of J. Tams' Esq., of Hackney, to Eliza, daughter of the late J. H. Livings"' Esq , of Jamaica. On the 19th inst., at St. Paul's, Islington, Chv les Hitchco_ckf Esq., of Highbury-park. to Caroline Anne, second daughter of "' Hanley, Esq., of Newington -green. ---- ..„..._______ D IE D. On the 21st inst.., aged 52, Sarah, relict of W. Lloyd, Esq., stir' many y, of ears Bar residen net, He t r there.ts, and daughter o f the late John Cerpe,l%scl" On the 30th of April, near Kotah, Lieutenant W. i Briggt 74th Bengal Nati ve I n f antry, Diplomatic Assistant at the Mit dency of Rajpoot ana , second son of T. F. Briggs, Esq., Somerset place, place, London. At Bromley, Kent, on the 14th inst., the wife of LieuterPot t ' General Sir J4ti Keane, K. C. 8., G.C. H. On th.z Ltth inst., at Whe a tl ey, aged 15, Louisa, eldest doughtier of Sif W, B. Cooke, Bart. Seymour -street Portman -square. On the 14th inst., Henry Tremayne, infant son of Mr. Irabh, ° f U lSn er t S he ey l m 3 of rimurnontAii t vi, g E. A' e On 1,-..k. , lath of April, at Nwiseerabad, Rajpootana, Mr s ria o _o r p ti t a •i n g d h_t i o a n a , ce t : lizabeth Mary Richardson, li t. %^h, wife of of R. Rich, 22d Regiment. o f Be g Native Infantry. 1 °"( 1 T1 - printed an.' Published by M O URDO YUNG , of :1 , 2 Strand, a t Th e Sun Office, No, 112, Stran4 ) it t h e Ge o Qf Middesex, - u e sday , July 24, 1838. //